"...including money, which is also free speech, according to Republican dogma..."

~ CW

NO.

Why are you correcting CW here when he is totally accurate?

Money is free speech according to a Supreme Court ruling.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

It is an important protection for SMALL DONORS as well as big money donors.

Um... no! Small donors in the form of individuals are definitely limited to how much they can contribute via campaign finance laws in United States statute, and if it was up to your fantasyland purity bullshit, they'd be even further limited to even less money/free speech than they're already limited. Duh.

There is no specific right in the Constitution to make political contributions. Without money classified as free speech which is a specific right then there would be no right to make political contributions leaving Congress free to make any laws not just limiting but cancelling anyone's ability to make political contributions.

You cannot seriously be this obtuse! CW is specifically talking Citizens United while you're singing the praises of the Supreme Court as a vehicle to protect small donors! *can't breathe from laughing*

Without this valuable protection what is there to stop the big money hypocrites in both parties from making laws that benefit the big money interests?

Oh, I know! *laughs* Don Harris and his bullshit would limit them all to $200 dollars or less! *still can't stop laughing*

Of, FFS, please educate yourself regarding Citizens United... you're embarrassing yourself and everyone else here with your clueless moronic dipshittery!

Cancel culture is in the eye of the beholder. It is terrible if you don't agree with the "reason" and wonderful if you do.

Thank goodness no one here tries to harass, threaten or cancel anyone here they disagree with.

Ever the whiney victim possessing zero self-awareness, you are... as per your usual... seriously confused. You have indeed practiced that very behavior on another man's blog -- this blog -- where you referred to another poster in an extremely derogatory manner and suggested that the poster commit suicide and tossed around the name of Dr. Kervorkian... but not before claiming how concerned you were with the deaths of Americans *laughs* and not before suggesting in no uncertain terms that the politicians with which you disagree -- all of them since none of them practices your Utopian fantasyland purity bullshit -- should be tortured and killed:

Even though the big money politicians DESERVE to be carried off by a mob, tortured and killed we can't get together now to form a mob.

~ Don Harris

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156893

*

And you again blamed the blog's author for the deaths of Americans for his not shilling your own personal political agenda.

You were yellow carded for violating the blog's rules, you ignorant fool, not for your short-sided intellectually challenged purity bullshit and repetitive rhetoric outlining your abject failure and pathetic attempts at political activism.

There are none so blind as those who cannot see because their head is jammed firmly up inside their own ass!

I'm a little surprised you haven't addressed this coded message to your, er, Pie cause.

Dude, unlike poor Don Harris and One Demand CW is telling you that he backs your play! And he's telling you to just keep trusting the plan.

"Getcher slices o' irony here, folks! Freshly harvested and packaged for your trip home!"

Isn't the money windmill you tilt at the single most important thing that politics is all about? 'Politics' and 'Money' are damn near synonymous, are they not?

Isn't "getting money out of politics" kinda like getting 'selfishness' out of 'greed'?

We were against those bakers and their bigoted ways. Does this mean we're for them now, because Major League Baseball is just like them and MLB is right on this issue of protesting against voter rights restrictions?

Perhaps I am over simplifying things here... BUT, the bakers cases resulted in the bakers wanting to enjoy the benefits of the free market while being able to discriminate against a SPECIFIC segment of society with no penalty, while MLB has to some extent realized profits could be reduced if they allow discrimination against a LARGE segment of society to stand.
The same goes for Citizens United, also used here to defend companies' right to 'free speech' in the face of Republican attacks

Again at the risk of over-simplification, the CU argument boils down to the GOP claiming that "money = free speech from corporations", the Dems (rightfully) claimed it was not the same and could drown out the voices from the public square.

What both sides missed is that companies have a fiduciary duty to make profits and they are run by humans. At times the duality can align to benefit society and at others to benefit the corporation.

Make no mistake I am totally against the ability of business to funnel unlimited amounts of dark money into the system under the guise of free speech (after all I cannot drive down the road in the carpool lane with LLC paperwork in the passenger seat and get out of paying the carpool fine, evidently corporations are not totally people for us plebes).

I would argue that your question requires the buy into the whole "money = free speech argument" at the expense of people running corporations getting to use their bully pulpit for good (not that there are other motives at play here).

I would argue that CU was never about limiting companies ability to utilize their bully pulpit but more about how they spend the money to utilize said pulpit.

In THIS case I would argue that the dualities have aligned and corporations have realized that on the public face it is good to use the bully pulpit to come out against this type of wide ranging disenfranchisement, that does not mean that they won't go back to the GOP feeding trough and fill it with dark money if it means they get to increase the bottom line.

TLDR, take the win when you can, if it doesn't make you feel dirty, but keep your wits about you for a new norm has not been born.

You make an excellent (if inconvenient) point. One suspects that hypocrisy (and the subsequent denouncing of said hypocrisy) is a substitute for reasoned debate. In other words, it's a distraction.

One minor complaint: You wrote,

But wait, friendly fellow traveller, I mean liberal:

I talked this over with my Comrades at the local Democratic Club. In fact, I interrupted our conversation about forced sex-change operations for recalcitrant Republicans!

And the resulting consensus was, y'all outta capitalize both "Fellow Traveler" and "Liberal."

Please accept this feedback in the loving spirit in which it is offered, Comrade. Don't wanna see you end up in a Reeducation Camp or nothing.

That is the calling-out of conservatives for not being consistent about their positions, when the liberal critic actually doesn't like the original position and wishes conservatives didn't advocate it.

For instance: "You said you were all for letting cake shops deny service to gay couples, but now you're against letting corporations express their political opinions with actions like relocating an event?? How hypocritical!"

But wait, friendly fellow traveller, I mean liberal: We were against those bakers and their bigoted ways. Does this mean we're for them now, because Major League Baseball is just like them and MLB is right on this issue of protesting against voter rights restrictions? I don't get it - isn't there some kind of distinction we can make (and try to force the Republicans to make too, so we come out on top of this argument), between discriminating against LGBTQ people and advocating for more liberal voting rights for minority populations? Like the first is bad, and companies shouldn't do it, and the second is good, and companies should do it?

Well, what is that distinction? And if there is one, any attempt to shame the GOP for hypocrisy had best not use this type of example, because we've just shown it's not hypocrisy at all, but more of an apples and oranges comparison that ignores reason in favor of overheated and self-righteous rhetoric, almost as overheated and self-righteous as McConnell's latest blather cited above.

The same goes for Citizens United, also used here to defend companies' right to 'free speech' in the face of Republican attacks. Um, wait, I thought Citizens United was a BAD thing from a liberal point of view. But now we're for it, because free speech is free speech, dammit? Or is there, again, some distinction to be made here - and is that distinction the thing that gets the GOP off the hook for hypocrisy and puts them where they belong, on the much bigger hook for just plain awfulness?